Frontline: Hot Politics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 27 2007, 01:25 PM) [snapback]431344[/snapback]</div>

I generally like Frontline, but with a subtitle of "Examining the politics of the US governments failure to act on the biggest environmental problem of our time" - do I really even need to watch it? I mean, talk about a pre-conceived agenda masquerading as balanced journalism. :lol:

How about a subtitle like: "Frontline explores the US government's position on global warming in light of the risks of climate change vs. the cost and effectiveness of climate change policies"?

But I guess since my subtitle is not scary enough it would not pull in as many viewers.

 

So far I don't see any untruths. At least in the obvious content of the production.

*goes back to watching*

Alric, what you have to remember is our country is run by technocrats and apocalyptic christians so any arguement we may come up with from a science base will be met with redicule and the fate of the economy and jobs will be paired against environmental issues as if there is a true battle between the two.

 

Guys, guys... let's stay focused and not meander onto tangents about Christians and flipping the bird to the world. That might be your perception, which is perfectly fine. My argument is, what is wrong with a show title such as: "Frontline explores the US government's position on global warming in light of the risks of climate change vs. the cost and effectiveness of climate change policies" ?

Would that not be a more balanced and fact based assessment than a title that speaks to a forgone conclusion? Who knows, with a title like that, you might even lure some "skeptics" into watching, and if the case made is strong enough, convert them! <_<

By the way, one could easily argue that "the biggest environmental problem of our time is" is loss of species diversity, loss of habitat, overpopulation, over consumption, pollution, or one of many other problems.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Apr 27 2007, 09:28 PM) [snapback]431524[/snapback]</div>

I understand what you are saying Tim. I think you are right in the title naming. As for staying on focus, that is quite difficult to do when I see more blatent government missmanagment and corruption. It makes me sick to my stomach and I find it hard to be diplomatic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 27 2007, 09:34 PM) [snapback]431528[/snapback]</div>

I hear you - the only solace I find to government mismanagement, corruption, etc. is to realize that despite all of its problems, our system of government is one of the best around. Not saying it is good - just better than most of the alternatives. Oh well.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Apr 27 2007, 09:36 PM) [snapback]431531[/snapback]</div>

For short term gain yes, longevity no. Our system of government has change quite a bit in the last 30yrs or so and I firmly believe we will not last long as a healthy and prosperous country if it continues on this path. We don't have to debate it though. I know you are a good guy and you do your part on a lot of important issues so I have no anger towards you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 27 2007, 09:42 PM) [snapback]431538[/snapback]</div>

Thanks F8L. I know we don't always agree on everything but I highly respect your intelligence, insight, and conviction. At the risk of further straying from the topic, I really do wish that we could get back to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We are unfortunately a long way from that and stuck with a very unhealthy two party system of Republicrats and Demicans, from which there seems to be no escape.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Apr 27 2007, 09:49 PM) [snapback]431542[/snapback]</div>

Thank you my friend. Your opinion holds weight with me after reviewing so many of your posts since I start visiting this site. I agree with everything you stated above.

 

Well, it will certainly be interesting to see how the system corrects itself, or doesn't. I think the current administration has put concern into the hearts of liberals and classic conservatives alike. Those of us adrift in the center have, I think, always wondered what the hell was wrong with the parties. Personally, I'm very ambivalent towards the two party system. Sometimes I think it's too binary (no pun intended) and other times I'm thankfully that we're not like Italy (where there's a 40% chance that each citizen will lead the country during their lifetime :lol: )

Back to the topic at hand. I've been very down on the hyperbole. It serves no purpose but ratings and viewership and confuses the issues. Things should be addressed in a balanced way. The fact is, we really don't know what the hell we're getting ourselves into. It doesn't mean that the sky is falling, but it also doesn't ignore the fact that we're having a profound effect on the biosphere.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 28 2007, 07:59 AM) [snapback]431662[/snapback]</div>

You have a valid point in the specific example you provide - but it is also common to see a title such as: "Assessing the effect of land use/land cover change on the change of urban heat island intensity" which by itself imparts no specific conclusion.

Also, by definition, the show is exploring the realm of the political - which as I suggested, necessarily balances the risks of inaction (or action) against costs and benefits relative to the affected constituencies. Thus "fact" may depend significantly on one's perspective and whether one is a beneficiary of a policy or an adversely impacted party.

But, we can agree to disagree. I still like my subtitle better. <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ May 1 2007, 06:55 AM) [snapback]433174[/snapback]</div>

As I said, by explicitly entering the the political realm the show is not an exercise in pure science and as such is not intended to be predictive -- rather it appears to be rendering judgment on a particular policy.

As such, it should at least have some semblance of balance since benefits and costs will accrue to parties affected by the policies in question. It is no different than an assessment one might conduct of other forms of government policies such as public education spending, tax policy, infrastructure investment, services outsourcing, medicare/medicaid spending, fuel economy / CAFE standards, trade restrictions, or a myriad of other such government policies / programs.

However, I completely agree with your statement "much wisdom lies in having the courage of recognizing when it is not necessary to be balanced".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ May 1 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]433501[/snapback]</div>

I would like to do that Alric. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. As I said, I do generally like Frontline.